Fordham v. Oldroyd’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2020
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · 84 Wash. 2d 975 - Maltman v. Sauer · Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co. · University of Denver v. Whitlock · Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace Ltd. Partnership
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A negligent act may at times be part of a chain of events eventually leading to an injury, but still be too remote to warrant holding the negligent party liable for the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“government entities employ and train firefighters and policemen, at least in part, to deal with those hazards that may result from the actions or inaction of an uncircumspect citizenry, it offends public policy to say that a citizen invites private liability merely because he happens to create a need for those public services.... Citizens should be encouraged and not in any way discouraged from relying on those public employees who have been specially trained and paid to deal with these hazards. Additionally, a citizen does not have the right to exclude public safety officers from emergency situations or to control their actions once they have been alerted to an emergency and arrive on the scene. Indeed, a citizen may have a legal duty to summon a public safety officer in some instances and [saying that] he may, in the course of discharging that duty, risk tort liability to officers who are specially trained and hired to cope with these hazards, [would be] inconsistent and unfair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Id. 130 (Wilkins, J., concurring and dissenting). He explained that, in his view, the causal separation between the first driver's driving and the trooper's injury was just too great to satisfy the requirements of proximate cause: In this case, [the trooper] asks us to conclude that as [the first driver] navigated his car through the snow, he should have foreseen the risk of injury to an assisting trooper from another driver and ... acted, in part, with that risk in mind. We have said that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Dee v. Johnson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.